I cover demographic, social and economic trends around the world. I am the R.C. Hobbs Professor of Urban Studies at Chapman University in California and executive editor of newgeography.com. My forthcoming book, The New Class Conflict, will be published by Telos in September.

The Republican Party's Fatal Attraction To Rural America

What makes Rick Santorum so appealing in the hinterlands will prove disastrous in the metropolitan regions that now dominate the country. Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Rick Santorum’s big wins in Alabama and Mississippi places the Republican Party in ever greater danger of becoming hostage to what has become its predominate geographic base: rural and small town America. This base, not so much conservatives per se, has kept Santorum’s unlikely campaign alive, from his early win in Iowa to triumphs in predominately rural and small-town dominated Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota and Oklahoma. The small towns and rural communities of states such as Michigan and Ohio also sheltered the former Pennsylvania senator from total wipeouts in races he would otherwise have lost in a blowout.

If America was an exclusively urban or metropolitan country, Mitt Romney would be already ensconced as the GOP nominee and perhaps on his way towards a real shot at the White House. In virtually every major urban region — which means predominately suburbs — Romney has generally won easily. Mike Barone, arguably America’s most knowledgeable political analyst, observes that the cool, collected, educated Mitt does very well in affluent suburbs, confronting President Obama with a serious challenge in one of his electoral sweet spots.

Outside the Mormon belt from Arizona to Wyoming, however, sophisticated Mitt has been a consistent loser in the countryside. This divergence between rural and suburban/metro America, poses a fundamental challenge to the modern Republican Party. Rural America constitutes barely 16 percent of the country, down from 72 percent a century ago, but still constitutes the party’s most reliable geographic base. It resembles the small-town America of the 19th century, particularly in the South and West, that propelled Democratic Party of Nebraska’s William Jennings Bryan to three presidential nominations.

Yet like Bryan, who also lost all three times, what makes Santorum so appealing in the hinterlands may prove disastrous in the metropolitan regions which now dominate the country. Much of this is not so much particular positions beyond abortion, gay rights, women’s issues, now de rigueur in the GOP, but a kind of generalized sanctimoniousness that does not play well with the national electorate.

We can see this in the extraordinary difference in the religiosity between more rural states, particularly in the South, and the rest of country. Roughly half of all Protestants in Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma, according to the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life, are evangelicals, not including historically black churches. In contrast, evangelicals make up a quarter or less of Protestants nationally and less still in key upcoming primary states such as Pennsylvania, New York, California and Connecticut, where the percentages average closer to 10 percent.

Let me be clear: Urbanity is not the key issue here. Cities have become so lock-step Democratic as to be essentially irrelevant to the Republican Party. Instead it’s the suburbs — home to a record 51 percent of the population and growing overall more than 10 times as fast as urban areas — that matter the most. Much of the recent suburban growth has taken place in exurbs, where many formerly rural counties have been swallowed, essentially metropolitanizing the countryside.

What accounts for the divergence between the suburban areas and rural areas? A lot may turn on culture. Small towns and villages may be far from the isolated “idiocy of rural life” that Marx referred to, but rural areas still remain someone more isolated and still somewhat less “wired” in terms of broadband use than the rest of the country.

Despite the popularity of country music, rural residents do not have much influence on mainstream culture. Most Hollywood executives and many in New York still commute from leafy ‘burbs. Few of our cultural shapers and pundits actually live predominately in the countryside, even if they spend time in bucolic retreats such as Napa, Aspen or Jackson Hole.

Until the recent commodity boom, much of rural America was suffering. And even today, poverty tends to be higher overall in rural areas than in urban and especially suburban countries. Some areas, notably in North Dakota and much of the Plains, are doing very well, but rural poverty remains entrenched in a belt from Appalachia and the deep South to parts of west Texas, New Mexico and California’s Central Valley.

Rural areas generally do not have strong ties to the high-tech economy now leading much of metro growth. This remains a largely suburban phenomenon, urban only if you allow core cities to include their hinterlands. All the nation’s strongest tech clusters — Silicon Valley, Route 128, Austin, north Dallas, Redmond/Bellevue in Washington, Raleigh-Durham — are primarily suburban in form. High tech tends to nurture a consciousness among conservatives more libertarian than socially conservative and populist. Not surprisingly, libertarian Ron Paul often does best in these areas and among younger Republican voters.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

You’re absolutely right. Romney cannot draw that demographic. The younger generation is skeptical of Obama, but they despise Romney, who seems the ultimate, actualized incarnation of corruption, dishonesty, cronyism, nihilism, and political spinelessness. The only hope Romney has is that the turnout is so low that one must wonder what kind of “democracy” we are living in, where the people who run the country, run it with support from roughly one quarter of the electorate. If voters don’t show up for Obama due to outright cynicism, disillusionment, or distaste, Romney could sneak in, but not because he’s a good candidate, and instead because the American government has lost all credibility and perhaps even legitimacy in the eyes of those in the loop, and under 45.

You’re absolutely right. Romney cannot draw that demographic. The younger generation is skeptical of Obama, but they despise Romney, who seems the ultimate, actualized incarnation of corruption, dishonesty, cronyism, nihilism, and political spinelessness. A man who represents quite literally nothing but the rich; a man devoid of all substance. The only hope Romney has is that the turnout is so low that one must wonder what kind of “democracy” we are living in, where the people who run the country, run it with support from roughly one quarter of the electorate. If voters don’t show up for Obama due to outright cynicism, disillusionment, or distaste, Romney could sneak in, but not because he’s a good candidate, and instead because the American government has lost all credibility and perhaps even legitimacy in the eyes of those in the loop, and under 45.

You’re absolutely right. Romney cannot draw that demographic. The younger generation is skeptical of Obama, but they despise Romney, who seems the ultimate, actualized incarnation of corruption, dishonesty, cronyism, nihilism, and political spinelessness. A man who represents quite literally nothing but the rich; a man devoid of all substance. The only hope Romney has is that the turnout is so low that one must wonder what kind of “democracy” we are living in, where the people who run the country, run it with support from roughly one quarter of the electorate. If voters don’t show up for Obama due to outright cynicism, disillusionment, or distaste, Romney could sneak in, not because he’s a good candidate, but instead because the American government has lost all credibility and perhaps even legitimacy in the eyes of those in the loop, and under 45.

Where else but rural areas, particularly the American South, can you find so many people willing, eager even, to vote against their economic interests? People so naive that they will follow any dog-whistle racist anywhere they are led? Signup for any war no matter how pointless and be willing, again even eager, to send their sons and grandson to die in it?

I was born and raised in the Southland and know of what I speak. The South is the best argument for a liberal education that seeks to eradicate ignorance. Santorum knows and panders to this.

If people voted in their economic interests the Republicans couldn’t elect a dogcatcher. It’s a party whose public face is based on lies and deception. Not Buckley but Buchanon. This party is a national shame.

“If people voted in their economic interests” is one of the most hackneyed phrases of the Left. Supposedly “their economic interests” are defined as redistribution through the largess of Big Government.

But the government is broke. Heck, the whole world is broke. According to the Comptroller of the currency, the US financial system “owns” derivatives of $230T. That’s four times the entire planet’s GDP.

The CBO projects that by 2055 interest payments on the debt will exceed federal revenues – and that’s if the overly optimistic growth numbers are met. That rosy scenario sees the debt as only being 280% of GDP. Just to sustain the current level of spending the rest of the world has to be willing to loan us 20% of their GDP every year with no hope for repayment.

So how are the people that grow your food (the rural hicks) voting against their economic interests by insisting on some rational thinking from the elected leaders?

Mr. Kotkin, Your thinking is confused on many fronts. You say, for example, “This does not mean that suburban voters share the anti-fossil fuel green faith of the urban core. But for them “drill baby drill” represents more a matter of price at the pump than a life and death issue for the local economy.” Ok, I give up. What does a high price at the pump represent for them? You are trying to say they don’t understand their opportunities are being strangled by high energy prices? Is anyone (besides Democrats) that dumb?

This is my first time reading a Forbes article, are articles on this website typically so patronising and are they often dictated by the author’s own personal prejudices and superficial generalisations based on nothing more then someone’s geographical birthplace? What a pathetic and degrading piece of ‘analysis’.